Global warming my ASS!!! LOL!! Anybody remember Joe Ligotti on Global warming?

[storm rider]

To borrow Storm Rider's turn of phrase, it's hubris for us laypeople to second guess the data accumulated by the people who've invested their lives studying this. I am convinced that they are telling the truth when they say the quantity of carbon being released into our atmosphere is unprecedented in our species (but not unprecedented in the planet's history, if we go back a mass extinction event or two).

I'm with Storm Rider in questioning the effectiveness of carbon tax though. It strongly feels like it's been perverted by politicians into a new revenue generator. I highly doubt it's not being diverted from its intent.

You can argue that there are people profiting off the narrative of climate change, and yes I would believe you. But it's important to remember that (a) the people who initially raised the alarm are not those people and (b) there are a lot more industries with great clout that would profit greater off climate change denial, so "follow the money" arguments tend to backfire.

Bottom line, I believe we're screwing up the climate balance but political claims to be doing something about it are disingenuous. Look no further than Trudeau and oil: oh yes, fossil fuels are bad, but we need to expand our production in them. Just a little bit longer. One more hit. Then we'll go legit. We promise. A politician trying to have his cake and eat it too.

A Carbon Tax has but one effect and that is the hit to Canadians in their wallet where they have no choice at all.It is directed in a dictatorship like style with no considerations.Trudeau has stated it will be $10 a ton and it gets ramped up to $50 a ton come 2023.....a convenient 4 years IF he gets another majority government.If Trudeau gets another majority come 2019 you can bet your ass Canada will be deeper in debt and that debt will be the result of Canada buying Carbon Credits to meet our obligations of the Paris Climate Accord come 2023 when Canadians will be paying $50 a ton Carbon Tax and IT WILL NOT LOWER EMISSIONS.....it will just TAX Canadians and send the money to other countries as our drama teacher VIRTUE SIGNALS and fucks over those he rules over.....just like his father did with the NEP in the 1980's.

Really I have a piece of paper that says I get to go to heaven.... And I'm not even Catholic..... Yup I don't have to worry about climate change/gobal warming, cause I get to go to heaven... where everything is perfect.

Nowadays on google, you have to look up the references to see the footwork/notes of many of the articles on the web. You don't know which side the articles is from. Facts and statistics can be manipulated by the writer in order to pursue individual/political means...

For those with swamp land in Florida, soon it will be a sea......

lets see, the weather has changed, check on the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic compared to 30 years ago. Look at the current storm coming in?

As you say facts and data can be manipulated and they have been.....Climate Gate was quite real.It exposed 10,000 + emails between "climatologists" whose main goal was to skew/falsify/and tell outright lies in order to further thier own ends as well to act in collusion to discredit ANY other scientist who did not agree with their findings.

Hey here is a fact for you....about 10 kilometers southwest of Okotoks there is a small tourist attraction called the "Big Rock"....it is literally a Big Rock.....a Big Rock that used to be part of the Rocky Mountains....during and ICE AGE that Big Rock was ripped loose from the Rocky Mountains by a fucking massive Glacier...the type that covered the entire Continent.....that Big Rock most likely weighs 50,000 tons.....it got left there....150 kilometers away from it's home in the Rocky Mountains when the Glacier that ripped it loose lost the force of nature it had when advancing and left it behind when the Glacier receeded.....that "Big Rock" is called a "Glacial Erratic" and it sits there....150 kilometers from the Rocky Mountains a few thousand years after the Glacier that carried it left it there lost it's force of nature.

The very thought that mankind can control the temperature of this planet is just fucking ridiculous when our elected officials in MOST Democratic countries cant even effectively deal with health care in their own countries not to mention specifically with Canada taking care of our Veterans.We as tax payers should be in total outrage to being taxed for a bullshit Socialist agenda when our country is swamped with it's own problems.

SR

 

[clu]

The very thought that mankind can control the temperature of this planet is just fucking ridiculous when our elected officials in MOST Democratic countries cant even effectively ...

You keep asserting that we can't impact the climate, but where's your justification? There are plenty of learned people who would disagree with you. I've worked alongside these people (no I'm not in climate research myself, but I have a science background and circles overlap) and they make a much more compelling argument than "that's ridiculous".

I mean consider the unexpected side effects of fracking. We've basically got the technology to cause earthquakes now. Sonic devices are used by Volkswagen in Mexico to disrupt weather patterns (suppress hail) but they are being sued by farmers for inadvertently causing crop failures as a result.

But climate change isn't even that. It's not some James Bond supervillain weather machine. It's the subtle cumulative effect of decades of poor care. Like having clogged arteries in your 60s because of a lifelong love of deep fried food.

Also, saying the government can't X so how could we do this is a false comparison. The government isn't trying to change the climate. It's just a byproduct of recklessness. And deliberate attempts to fix it look pretty slapdash and half-hearted so their tradition of incompetence remains intact.

 

[vanperb]

As you say facts and data can be manipulated and they have been.....Climate Gate was quite real.It exposed 10,000 + emails between "climatologists" whose main goal was to skew/falsify/and tell outright lies in order to further thier own ends as well to act in collusion to discredit ANY other scientist who did not agree with their findings.

Fact check https://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/

The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible. Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one. E-mails being cited as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to “hiding the decline” isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The “decline” actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.

Also note it's been nearly a decade since this information was released, and evdence *for* climate change continues to build.

Hey here is a fact for you....about 10 kilometers southwest of Okotoks there is a small tourist attraction called the "Big Rock"....it is literally a Big Rock.....a Big Rock that used to be part of the Rocky Mountains....during and ICE AGE that Big Rock was ripped loose from the Rocky Mountains by a fucking massive Glacier...the type that covered the entire Continent.....that Big Rock most likely weighs 50,000 tons.....it got left there....150 kilometers away from it's home in the Rocky Mountains when the Glacier that ripped it loose lost the force of nature it had when advancing and left it behind when the Glacier receeded.....that "Big Rock" is called a "Glacial Erratic" and it sits there....150 kilometers from the Rocky Mountains a few thousand years after the Glacier that carried it left it there lost it's force of nature.

Nifty fact. Will visit next time I'm in Alberta. Neat Blackfoot mythos tied to it.
Yes, glaciers do/did exist and they spanned quite the continental distance, I'm not sure how this is supposed to demonstrate Climate Change doesn't exist.

 

[Ray]

Climate change is real. We've had this discussion before.

The Carbon Tax is something I hate. The theory behind it is that it is supposed to change our habits in consumption. Reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and such. Which would be great if we had options, cheaper, more efficient options, but we don't. Yet. So it just costs more to drive to work.

 

[80watts]

Unicorns??
https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?257974-Saturday-at-muh-bdsm-roleplay-kinky-All-for-your-desires-514-605-0857

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Unicorn

My fauty logic reminds me of the joke "Whats the difference between a slut and a bitch?".....

But then again the last climate change could of killed off all the unicorns....

I read a story somewhere where the article compared unicorns to a narwhal whale.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narwhal

 

[storm rider]

Climate change is real. We've had this discussion before.

The Carbon Tax is something I hate. The theory behind it is that it is supposed to change our habits in consumption. Reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and such. Which would be great if we had options, cheaper, more efficient options, but we don't. Yet. So it just costs more to drive to work.

I do agree that climate change is real....it has been happening for BILLIONS of years.Mankind has only been around a couple of MILLENIA and only partly industrialized for the last 100 years

As for "manmade climate change" call me Mr.Skeptic when "cimatoligists" cherry pick the information they want based on the last maybe 60 years that information like that has been accurately kept and plug it into a computer and say what the climate will be 1000 years from now.Please remember that according to that charlatan Al Gore New York was supposed to be under 8 feet of water many years ago.

SR

 

[vanperb]

Found this article: https://www.sciencealert.com/feedback-study-explains-why-false-beliefs-stick

Scientists think they might have the answer, and it's less to do with lack of understanding, and more to do with the feedback they're getting.
Getting positive or negative reactions to something you do or say is a greater influence on your thinking than logic and reasoning, the new research suggests – so if you're in a group of like-minded people, that's going to reinforce your thinking.
Receiving good feedback also encourages us to think we know more than we actually do.

 

[wilde]

I just watched the Vice news episode on geo engineering to reduce the impact of climate change:

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a38zve/watch-the-trailer-for-vice-on-hbos-engineering-earth

Then I come across a thread like this which makes me truly sad.

 

[nightswhisper]

Here's 1350 peer reviewed papers by scientists who disagree with the 99% conclusion.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html?m=1

Most of these were included in the 99% paper.

Shows you how much credence scientists wield these days.

 

[clu]

Here's 1350 peer reviewed papers by scientists who disagree with the 99% conclusion.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html?m=1

Most of these were included in the 99% paper.

Shows you how much credence scientists wield these days.

Scientists are fine. This is not a scientific source. See counterclaim of your source's veracity (or lack thereof)...

https://www.carbonbrief.org/using-o...nalysis-of-the-900-climate-skeptic-papers/amp

"...many of the papers do not focus on human-induced climate change – and so have little relevance to the theme of the list."

"...we contacted a selection to see whether they supported this interpretation of their work – the responses confirmed their work is being misappropriated by inclusion in lists such as this."

etc.

 

[vanperb]

Here's 1350 peer reviewed papers by scientists who disagree with the 99% conclusion.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html?m=1

Most of these were included in the 99% paper.

Shows you how much credence scientists wield these days.

In addition to what clu has responded with, links within the page refer to other climate denier collections which have been debunked by Snopes

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

Please note that having a domain with the words "science", or "technology" mean that a site is scientific or technology related.

 

[nightswhisper]

In addition to what clu has responded with, links within the page refer to other climate denier collections which have been debunked by Snopes

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/400-papers-published-in-2017-prove-that-global-warming-is-myth/

Please note that having a domain with the words "science", or "technology" mean that a site is scientific or technology related.

Incorrect strawman argument. Just because others are disproved doesn't mean this list is disproven.

This list is a peer reviewed selection of articles that do not just include deniers, but include those who were included in the original Cook et Al publication which stated that 99% of scientists agree with anthropogenic climate change, which defeats the original argument. Some of those falsely associated articles simply study climate science without supporting or denying anthropogenic climate change. And since Cook falsely classified them, then the actual number of scientists who agree is largely watered down. This list isn't an argument for or against climate change, but rather defeat the so-called unanimous consensus in the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change.

You linked a fact check against two largely falsified movements. This link includes scientific journals from well known universities and citation-based pubications. Links have nothing to do with the validity of information presented therein. A list with established climate scientists with bibliographic listing is not debunkable.

Climate Change is a hypothesis and not a fact. Modern science is financed by groups and people with agendae who desire a specific outcome for specific purposes. You cannot accept one side of politicized science while simultaneously not accept another.

 

[westwoody]

This list is a peer reviewed selection of articles

The authors of some of the articles have said explicitly that they are not peer reviewed. One is quoted in the Snopes article saying his article was commentary.

Are you claiming the list was peer reviewed, or that the articles are peer reviewed?
Peer reviewed studies of accumulated studies, or meta-studies are a thing, but this is not one.
I am looking at some of the articles. It would take time to look at all 400.
Not all the articles on the list are peer reviewed. As I wrote above, some are commentary, others are not peer reviewed, others are on unrelated topics.
Some would fail peer review.
Many authers have dubious or unverifiable credentials.
The search by Scientific American of a random sample of 30 petition signers was interesting.

Therefore I consider the claim that this is a list of peer reviewed articles disproven.

I think the best course, the only practical course, is debate individual studies.
There are so many in these lists that examining each one is impractical.

 

[clu]

Climate Change is a hypothesis and not a fact. Modern science is financed by groups and people with agendae who desire a specific outcome for specific purposes. You cannot accept one side of politicized science while simultaneously not accept another.

Theory not hypothesis. Theory means something specific in science. Theory of Evolution. Theory of Relativity. They never say "Fact of Relativity" because science is always open to entertaining new data. This does not diminish the accumulated confidence in the current theory.

Your claim about modern science being financed with an agenda is misleading. There have arisen politically motivated think tanks, yes. But they have not supplanted legitimate science. They exist alongside it. The trick is to recognise and avoid them. Such as the Popular Technology article which has been discredited by the very people it's citing as being allegedly on their side. How can you give it credibility in those circumstances?

Besides: as I mentioned upthread, if you start down the road of financial interests twisting the message, then the institution with greater financial resources to corrupt the message is the one that benefits from climate denial. So how can you say with confidence that your citations aren't coming from the deeper-pocketed financiers?

 

[Quarter Mile'r]

I would just like someone to show/compare the differences why the earth warmed up ALL ON IT'S OWN
after the last ice age, as compared to it being human caused through industrialization as they would
have us believe today.

When you think about it, I mean that is some powerful global warming in the case of the ice age continental ice
sheets melting away. What if that was happening today? Would these think tanks be gladly praising us then
for dumping millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or would they be taxing our asses
off to turn the tables and have the continental ice sheets return as they were.

Why has there not been a case study of these two relativity's?





.......................QM'r

 

[Quarter Mile'r]

Theory not hypothesis. Theory means something specific in science. Theory of Evolution. Theory of Relativity. They never say "Fact of Relativity" because science is always open to entertaining new data. This does not diminish the accumulated confidence in the current theory.

Outside of the politically motivated side of things, you might want to reconsider or rather have another
look at your comparison of "Theory" and 'Hypothesis". At least as how the word hypothesis is used
in science. For example..........

In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation.
Outside science, a theory or guess can also be called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something more
than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothesis

But yet a well established theory is just that. Theory. Not proven science like 2+2=4.
So my point is, which one is more correct cuz as I see it neither of the two are proof of what they theorize
or hypothesize. Mostly just guesses and conjecture.

So if this is what is used to explain climate change then it is simply nothing more than a knee
jerk reaction from those who do nothing more than argue from two standpoints.
Oh so typical of how humans solve their problems.
In the meantime......................




........................QM'r

 

[clu]

Outside of the politically motivated side of things, you might want to reconsider or rather have another
look at your comparison of "Theory" and 'Hypothesis". At least as how the word hypothesis is used
in science. For example..........

In science, a hypothesis is an idea or explanation that you then test through study and experimentation.
Outside science, a theory or guess can also be called a hypothesis. A hypothesis is something more
than a wild guess but less than a well-established theory.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hypothesis

But yet a well established theory is just that. Theory. Not proven science like 2+2=4.
So my point is, which one is more correct cuz as I see it neither of the two are proof of what they theorize
or hypothesize. Mostly just guesses and conjecture.

So if this is what is used to explain climate change then it is simply nothing more than a knee
jerk reaction from those who do nothing more than argue from two standpoints.
Oh so typical of how humans solve their problems.
In the meantime......................




........................QM'r

I'm not sure what you're objecting to. Inside science, a hypothesis precedes a theory. It's what happens before you start examining the data. Theory is supported by data. I was drawing the distinction because Climate Change is supported by data thus isn't merely hypothesis. It has "graduated" to theory.

2+2=4 isn't "proven science", it's math. Math relies on pure logic not data. Nothing that relies on data is "fact". There's accepted theory until something comes along to contradict it.

Newton's theory of gravitation was accepted theory for centuries. Didn't stop it from being supplanted by Einstein's. (Newton's model got the orbit of Mercury wrong. Einstein's gets it right.)

But even when accepted science is superceded it's rarely "totally wrong" just somewhat inaccurate, and will be fine-tuned as more data is collected. Case in point: the notion that it was "global warming" but is now "climate change": the general thesis held (manmade impact on climate), if the details were somewhat wrong (how the variables would be impacted).

 

[clu]

I would just like someone to show/compare the differences why the earth warmed up ALL ON IT'S OWN
after the last ice age, as compared to it being human caused through industrialization as they would
have us believe today.

When you think about it, I mean that is some powerful global warming in the case of the ice age continental ice
sheets melting away. What if that was happening today? Would these think tanks be gladly praising us then
for dumping millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere or would they be taxing our asses
off to turn the tables and have the continental ice sheets return as they were.

Why has there not been a case study of these two relativity's?





.......................QM'r

First, we're not in an ice age, so we're already at the top of the cyclic climate swing and yet we're pumping it higher. Second, a number of mass-extinction events were believed accompanied by significant volcanic activity that freed a lot of greenhouse gases etc. trapped in the earth's crust. By digging up oil and burning it on a mass scale, in a vague sense we're now doing the same thing.

Edit to add: you know I used to think the exact same thing as you, but someone in the field had the patience to walk me through the analysis and it was hard to hold on to my wishful thinking in light of it. They have thought this through a lot. It's hard to take armchair quarterbacking seriously after that. In my mind, the only way to convincingly disprove it is to be at least as thorough. "What if they're wrong?" or "is it really different than what usually happens?" just doesn't cut it.

 

[LADY-VIA]

I could say a lot, but I’ll hold my tongue. I Havnt looked yet, but are there plans for the coastal lines here in Canada to move inland due to climate change in the event of a storm, like the preparations that are in the works for the states coastal lines due to recent events? Does anyone here track the hurricane wind speed off of the bouys, to see if they match up to what’s being recorded on tv. Do people still watch tv ? Edit -( I meant do people believe everything they hear on tv, as I myself enjoy watching a couple different crime series ) & Who made “snopes “ a credible source? Is it credible or just easy ? So many questions....

 

[storm rider]

I could say a lot, but I’ll hold my tongue. I Havnt looked yet, but are there plans for the coastal lines here in Canada to move inland due to climate change in the event of a storm, like the preparations that are in the works for the states coastal lines due to recent events? Does anyone here track the hurricane wind speed off of the bouys, to see if they match up to what’s being recorded on tv. Do people still watch tv ? Edit -( I meant do people believe everything they hear on tv, as I myself enjoy watching a couple different crime series ) & Who made “snopes “ a credible source? Is it credible or just easy ? So many questions....

So what are "coastal lines"? are they off shore by say 5 miles?If Vancouver was a SERIOUS threat due to rising oceans due to Climate Change there is no fucking way on earth a BANK would give a MORTGAGE on the property nor loan any money on it if the BANK would LOSE in the end.David Suzuki OWNS 4 properties in Vancouver including his palatial home that over looks the Capilanno Yacht Club on a double lot.The founder of Lululemon Chip Wilson owns a 14 MILLION property in Point Grey.....and I am pretty sure he bought it with no concearn of it being swallowed by the ocean.

SR